Apologetics: Defending Hope - Week 3

Christianity and Science

What is Intelligent Design?

The definition of intelligent design is that the universe could not have merely occurred by chance. Evidence for a creator is found in how the universe has been laid out. This is what Romans 1 is talking about.

100 years ago, scientists said that the universe was infinite and that it wasn’t changing. It always has been.

Then enters Georges Lemaître. He was the first one who introduced the idea of a Big Bang and expanding universe in the 1930’s.

Scientists of the day hated this thought and couldn’t get behind it because it rocked the boat of what they knew and thought.

Later in the 1970’s is when this idea really took steam and scientists began to roll with this idea.

It has thus developed into what we have today that the Universe began as a tiny, extremely hot and dense point which then rapidly expanded and cooled, creating all the matter and energy we see today; essentially, the universe started with a "big bang" explosion and continues to expand outwards

they conclusion of this model is that the universe came to be by chance.

Well chance is not science. It’s not proven. It’s a educated guess as to what happened. And there are evidences for the big bang. You can fall down a rabbit hole and have a crisis of faith. It’s an easy thing to do. But you can’t look at only the scientist’s side of the story. Look at the information that is presented by secular scientists and scientists who are believers. You will find a much different approach and explanation of the evidence that is presented.

I don’t have time to present all the evidence. I am also not well enough studied on the topic, however there are many articles and talks out there that explain these ideas much better than I can in our limited time together.

When you look at the evidence that science has found that the universe is expanding, that means it had a starting point. It had to have begun somewhere. We have the answer to that in Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

Why was the Big Bang such a controversial topic for scientists in the 1930’s?

Because it is in essence saying the same thing that the Bible had said for centuries. The Universe had a beginning.

Scientists discovered the truth of the scripture. The universe began at an instant. They have thus theorized how that came to be.

I would call this trying to explain away the truths that have discovered.

Another self-defeating argument of the big bang theory is the

Law of Conservation of Mass.

this says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Do you know what they say the big bang did?

created all of space from nothing.

It created matter. Matter that scientifically proven can neither be created nor destroyed by natural means.

If all of the matter was created at once, and since that point none of that matter has ceased to exist but been used and reused and changed from one form to another.

YET NO SINGLE piece of matter has ever been created since that point or destroyed since that point.

There is no scientific explanation for this. But there is a theological one.

What’s the other thing that says that the universe was created out of nothing?

The doctrine of ex nihilo theology, or creatio ex nihilo, developed around 200 AD. It was a response to Greek philosophy's belief that the universe was created from pre-existing matter. The doctrine was a fundamental tenet of Christian theology by the 3rd century.

Christians have been saying what was science has called a breakthrough in understanding for centuries.

The basis and goal of science is to try and understand the truth of how the world works. At each discovery, I would vouch to say the more and more truth that is discovered, the more and more it reveals the evidence of God.

Jesus says in John 14:6 “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Jesus is the truth. All scientific truth that we can ever discover will always point to him. It’s how it has been and will continue to be.

The question is then asked, well what if science can prove that God doesn’t exist.

My answer is good luck. You can try to manipulate the evidence and findings, but with every scientific finding, you can find truth about God in it.

Scientists say the universe was created by chance. So what is the difference between chance and design?

In reality, there is no such thing as chance.

Flipping a quarter example.

So if there is no such thing as chance, and the universe could not have came about by chance happenings, therefore it had to be by design.

Since it was by design, therefore has to be a designer.

Think of a binary computer code. Binary just means that it consists of 1’s and 0’s and that is how the computer functions and operates. It’s a complex and specific language that was created in such a way that the computer uses the inputs to create outputs.

However, the code didn’t just by chance come to be. It was designed by a person to work in that specific way.

You will also hear computer programmers cussing at their computer, pulling their hair out and yelling because the program that they created is not working as it should.

This goes to show the vast difference in a fallen creature creating something, versus the omniscient God creating everything.

When humans create, there are flaw. When God creates, it is perfection and works as it ought.

What are the odds that there is another planet that is able to support life?

you would be surprised that the answer to this is infinitely small.

There are ~322 parameters that must be met in order for a planet to be able to support and sustain life.

some of these include:

Galaxy type

star distance relative to galactic center

star mass

star age

position and mass of a planet like Jupiter relative to Earth

Planetary rotation period

surface gravity

tectonic activity

When you multiply all of the 322 parameters probabilities and subtract that from the maximum possible number of planets in the universe, the probability of an earth-like planet being formed by chance is ~10^-282

Never gonna happen.

Now let’s take a look at how God designed a few things:

The Periodic Table:

The periodic table was invented by Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev in 1869. However, prior to Mendeleev, chemists had been pondering for decades how to classify the elements. Beginning in 1789, Antoine Lavoisier began classifying elements by their properties. Johann Wolfgang Döbereiner showed in 1817 that elements could be arranged by their atomic weight into triads such that, for example, strontium had an atomic weight between those of calcium and barium.

Insert Picture of Periodic Table

Every thing that you will ever see in the world is made up of a combination of these elements.

Let’s look at this example.

I need five volunteers who don’t have diabetes or high cholesterol.

We’re going to play a game. I have five spoons. Four with sugar. One with salt. We are going to try to determine who the person who got the salt is. Normally this is done with Vodka and water but I didn’t think that was appropriate.

Salt is made up of a sodium and a chlorine atom. NaCl.

If you were to ingest either of these elements by themselves, it would kill you. However, when they react together, they’re perfectly safe.

The molecular formula for sugar is C12H22O11

These molecular formulas are wildly different, but they were designed to be that way. If you add another element or take away an element, you get something that is completely different.

Everything in the world is made like this. If one thing in the molecular formula changes, then we have something totally different. Do we really believe that everything in the world that has a chemical formula was created by random pairings?

No. Group 1 elements react with Group 7. Group 2 reacts with Group 6. Transition metals are weird. They always have been. But everything that is naturally occuring in this world is formed by elements on this periodic table.

This is the same concept for DNA.

DNA makes up every living creature and it has four basic building blocks or genetic code sequences.

Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, and Thymine

A goes with T

C goes with G

Every living thing on earth has these four bases that make up their DNA.

Our DNA replication is not perfect. Mutations can occur. Sometimes these mutations have no effect, sometimes they cause advantages.

Advantageous Mutations

HIV resistance: Some individuals have a genetic mutation in the CCR5 gene that makes them highly resistant to HIV infection.

Sickle cell trait: While carrying one copy of the sickle cell gene can cause sickle cell anemia, having one copy also provides some resistance to malaria.

Enhanced ability to taste bitter flavors: This can be advantageous in environments where bitter tastes often indicate poisonous plants.

Mutations that protect against certain diseases: Some people have genetic variations that can partially protect them from diseases like Alzheimer's or certain types of cancer.

Some would call these advantages natural selection of MicroEvolutionetrimental.

Detrimental Mutations

Marfan syndrome is caused by a mutation affecting a protein that forms part of connective tissue, leading to heart problems and other health challenges.

Down Syndrome

Turner Syndrome

Cancer

the advantages and disadvantages to genes are more rare than the ones that have no effect.

When mutations occur, your cells actually are able to repair those genes or destroy that cell before replication occurs.

this is how cancer spreads by mutated cells replicating at a rate that your body can’t handle and correct.

Our human DNA sequence has about 20,000 genes.

All humans share about 99.9% of the same genome. There are the slightest of variations.

Enter Evolutionists.

we share our genetic code with Chimpanzees and Bonobos at about 98-99%.

This is where scientists get that we evolved from apes millions of years ago.

Argument against Macro Evolutionists

Example: Apes to neanderthals to humans.

They say our cells have changed and mutated and all living things are able to be linked back to a single cell organism.

1. If our cells are able to fix mutations and genetic coding issues, our cells aren’t progressively evolving into something new. They are staying relatively the same and that is for all of humanity across thousands of years.

There has not been something new or something else that has been created from us or a different species at all for that matter.

2. Although our genetic code is so similar, look at how different apes and humans are.

3. Throughout all the species in all the world, we have not found a species that is in a stage of transition from one thing to another.

This is called macroevolution. Which just means evolution on a large scale.

there are no neanderthals present. If it was a continual process of evolution, you would think that there would be evidence of the transitional state of species found somewhere but there is not.

Some will claim there are fossils that have been found that show the transitional phase but they are few and far between, and if this is scientifically accurate, you would expect a lot more fossils to have been found that show this.

Let me give you another example from the Periodic Table.

NaCl vs NaF

Think of Table Salt (NaCl) - we use it to season and preserve food. Very useful.

Another compound that is very similar to NaCl in it’s molecular makeup is Sodium Fluoride (NaF)

Does anyone know what sodium fluoride is used for?

It’s used in Toothpaste to strengthen tooth enamel.

Two very similar compounds. One variation. Two very different uses.

Chimps and humans are similar to this. Although our Genetic code is very similar, we are two very different species.

Macro-evolution vs. Micro-evolution

Macro Evolution is a sham. That is that things have evolved over millions of years into different species. It has never been observed.

Micro Evolution on the other hand is an extremely valid and observed phenomenon that occurs.

The Galapagos finches example.

The Big Question: Is the Earth Young or Old?

Who in here is young earth?

Who in here is old earth?

Who in here is confused and just wants to be told what to believe?

My answer to this question is that I don’t know. I don’t believe that the gospel is in jeopardy with one belief over the other.

You have solid evangelical believers on both sides of this argument.

Two great sources are Answers in Genesis who are young earth and Reasons to Believe who are old earth.

There are great points on each side.

Carlton was Old Earth but went Young Earth. Carlton is one of the best preachers and most biblical men that I know. I would be willing to say that Carlton has forgotten more about the bible than I will ever know. I reached out to one of my seminary professors who is a literal genius. I would bet his IQ is on the level if not higher than Einsteins. He’s old earth. I respect both men. I trust both of their interpretations of scripture. It leaves me even more confused with more questions than it does with the answers.

Genesis 1 is where we get these ideas of Old Earth and Young Earth. When I asked Professor Ponder about his views, he directed me to his sermon he preached on Genesis 1 and in his sermon he pointed out some awesome things.

There are at least 10 different interpretations about Genesis 1 by Evangelical believers. Most of these were developed before the theory of evolution came to be.

The age of the earth is not something that Genesis 1 is intended to answer. It’s not the most important truth there.

I would be willing to bet, through your readings of Genesis, you have seldom struggled with if it implies an old earth or a new earth. That’s because there are deeper theological truths that are present here that can be overshadowed by the young earth old earth debate.

I do find it funny that there are a couple of different interpretations on how the world started and how the world is going to end.

You’re either Old earth or Young Earth and your either Amillenial, pre-millenial, or post-millenial.

Theologians are arguing over the beginning and the end. One thing there isn’t much argument over is what’s in the middle. That is the Gospel.

I don’t believe that we can take a stance and say this is 100% how it is on either of the topics. I think we have to say this is how I interpret this part of the scripture, but I may be wrong. We die on the hill of the Gospel. We hold on loosely to our interpretations of the beginning and the end of the world because we might be reading it right, but we also might be reading it wrong.

The biggest takeaways from the tension between Christianity and Science:

God is the author of His word and the maker of the world. In the end, there will be no conflict between scripture and science.

Scripture, not science, is the ultimate authority. Science gets it wrong sometimes. There’s a lot we still don’t know. There’s a lot that we are still discovering. But the more that we discover the truths of the world and of the universe, the more it points to God.